Dismissed

Mr.Vinay R v. Mrs.Shilpa v

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1639/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Court held that the interim order was a stop-gap arrangement for the wife's survival and found no error in the lower courts' decisions. The matter was remanded to the trial court for disposal on merits within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to continue paying interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month till disposal of the case on merits.

Mr.Vinay R Vs Mrs.Shilpa v — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26120 CRL.RP No. 1639 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1639 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR.VINAY R S/O A V RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R. NO.40, KANAKAPPA LAYOUT MEDAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU 560 049

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ANIL R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. SHILPA V W/O VINAY R D/O VENKATESH C AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.206 VENUGOPALA NAGARA HULIMAVU BENGALURU 560 076

¶15

W/AT I I F L FINANCE LIMITED NO.110, 3 LALBHAG MAIN ROAD KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT DODDAMAVALLI

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:26120 CRL.RP No. 1639 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SUDHAMANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 027

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI SHIVANANDA REDDY R V, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1644/2024 DATED 09.10.2025 BY LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU AS IN ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the petitioner counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

This revision petition is filed against the granting of interim order of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month by the Trial Court and the same was challenged before the appellate court and appellate court also considering the material and record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26120 CRL.RP No. 1639 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Now, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier, the petitioner was working and due to the conduct of the respondent, he is not having any employment and now he is depending on his father. The counsel for the respondent brought to notice of this court the assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner herein. Having taken note of the fact that the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court is only for an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. The grounds which have been urged by both the petitioner as well as the respondent has to be considered by the trial Court while considering the matter on merits. The interim order of maintenance was ordered for survival of the respondent herein i.e., wife. Hence, I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court and confirming the same by the appellate Court since it is only a interim maintenance. With regard to the status as well as capability to pay the maintenance is concerned, the same has to be decided on merits. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with this matter exercising the revisional jurisdiction since it is only a stop-gap arrangement to make the payment of interim maintenance. Hence, no ground is made out to

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:26120 CRL.RP No. 1639 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

entertain the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition

¶36

is dismissed.

¶37

The petitioner is directed to continue to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month as per the order of the Trial Court till the disposal on merits.

¶38

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter on merits within nine months from today. Both the counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within time bound period.

¶39

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶40

Mr.Vinay R v. Mrs.Shilpa v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Vinay R v. Mrs.Shilpa v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Balunayaka Vs P. Devanna

Mr. Mohammed Ashraf Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs M/S E.S.I. Corporation

K R Chidambara Vs State by Woman Police

Sunil D R Vs Sharada S Raikar

A Piche Ghani @ Abdul Ghani Vs the State of Karnataka by Madikeri Rural Police Station